Re: [DNSOP] Terry Manderson's Discuss on draft-ietf-dnsop-dnssec-roadblock-avoidance-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[e-mail]>]

This is Not My Yes, but ...

On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Terry Manderson <[e-mail]
> wrote:

> Hi Wes,
>
> Thanks for responding.
>
> I'll trim to only the the remaining items needing a response, and express
> my appreciation at the clarified items.
>
> On 9/07/2016, 9:53 AM, "iesg on behalf of Wes Hardaker"
> <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >"Terry Manderson" <[e-mail]> writes:
> >
> >
> >> s1.2 is https://github.com/ogud/DNSSEC_ALG_Check going to be a fully
> >> stable URL?
> >
> >Per discussion in another thread: probably.  Olafur certainly won't
> >delete it as the owner, and I doubt github will die anytime soon.
> >
> >The only other choice is to remove the helpful reference.
>
> Thanks.
>
> >
> >I've changed it to "validating resolver daemon" instead.  Make more sense?
>
> It does.
>
>
> >
> >> s3.1.1, please use the example domain for such examples, ie example.com
> ,
> >> and once you have used it do you really need to repeat it for each
> >> 'existing' text until you get to the non-existent tests and so on up to
> >> 3.1.14.
> >
> >Well, here's the deal: example.com won't work and the domain in question
> >actually does work.  Some of them can probably be replaced with the root
> >server, but many others require somewhat specialized tests pointing to a
> >special domain.  That one is known to be the only one that likely will
> >work for some tests at this point.  The question is, what to do about
> >that?  Can we list a known one?  Must we list a useless one instead?
> >Should we pre-declare the problem?  I've been waiting for this to come
> >up :-)
>
> Personally, my advice would be to pre-decalre the issue, and why it's an
> issue and why some special domain is needed and describe the semantics of
> the FQDNs needed for the appropriate tests (including an appendix zone
> file?), and then use example.com as the label which needs to be
> substituted by the person constructing the tests/zone. The benefit here is
> that some folks might like to replicate such a construct in their own
> infrastructure, and this document might give them that guidance.
>
> Does that make sense?


Terry, I like where you're headed, but just to ask the obvious question,
are you thinking the draft would, or would not, also contain something like
"at the time this document was approved, a domain used for this test was $
someactualworkingdomain.com"?

I didn't mention the domains mentioned in this draft in my ballot, but I
was watching when you brought it up ... so I'm still curious.

Thanks,

Spencer


> Thanks
> Terry
>